Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Gray Politics
I recently read an editorial by Maureen Dowd of the New York Times covering Sen. Barack Obama's recent speech on race addressing the controversial beliefs of his longtime pastor. The article clearly outlines the issue and political engineering surrounding it but the author manages to stay objective and leaves the reader with a rather ambiguous statement possibly affirming the speech as a welcome change to the racial firefight which has ensued since gaining the public spotlight. While making no argument for Obama or his critics, she lauds him for the eloquence and necessity of his words but also states the speech may not be enough to heal the wounds in his campaign caused by this scandal. Intelligently written with staunch references, this article provides neutral sentiment with accurate information in a concise manner which would naturally lead any reader to further research the topic and/or frequent the publication.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
To be objective about a topic like this has to be very hard. It is good there were a lot of references used and obvious research done; that definitely makes the argument appear less biased. However, the sources of the information used should be well documented and reliable. This is a hot topic right now and most of the articles I have read about the pastor's comments and Obama's reactions have been very biased; it is good to hear of an article that isn't!
This is one of the first articles I have read that was not extremely biased about this topic. I think that the author did a great job keeping an extreme bias out of the article. By doing this the author made the article very easy to read. I thought this article was well researched and very credible.
Post a Comment